What do you think about dropping down a few picks to the end of the round for an extra second rounder.
Instead of #20, I'd rather have a 27+57 or even 30+60+120.
Half the first rounders in the second part of the round either never make it or become very, very marginal players. With two picks, we can at least take a stab at a pair of (or three) high-risk, high-return players and hope that one of them will eventually play on the first line.
I say keep the 20th pick, you never know who is going to fall down to you in that spot. Regardless, you'll get a better player at the #20 spot than you will in the later rounds, plain and simple.
i say wait until the draft and if someone who is high on their list falls like say teubert or someone else then grab him, and if not, trade down with LA or StL to get 2 more picks in the 2nd
I say keep the 20th pick, you never know who is going to fall down to you in that spot. Regardless, you'll get a better player at the #20 spot than you will in the later rounds, plain and simple.
Yes, it's probably a better prospect, but does that mean that it will be a better player.
Korpikoski was a better prospect than either Dubinsky or Graham. But it was to have those two than Korps because one of those two, Dubi, turned out better than Korps.
This doesn't mean that any second round is gonna be better. But if I have a late first, a second and a fourth rounders instead of a #20, I'd bet on one of those 3 being better than the #20.
Yes, it's probably a better prospect, but does that mean that it will be a better player.
Korpikoski was a better prospect than either Dubinsky or Graham. But it was to have those two than Korps because one of those two, Dubi, turned out better than Korps.
This doesn't mean that any second round is gonna be better. But if I have a late first, a second and a fourth rounders instead of a #20, I'd bet on one of those 3 being better than the #20.
Who's Graham?
Korpikoski is going to be insane, just watch. And you still can't tell whether Dubi is better than Korpikoski when Korpikoski still hasn't played a full season.
Who's Graham?
Korpikoski is going to be insane, just watch. And you still can't tell whether Dubi is better than Korpikoski when Korpikoski still hasn't played a full season.
This is what I was going to say. How can you say that Dubinsky turned out better than Korpikoski when the latter has only played a single game in the NHL so far? Just because the Rangers were patient with his development doesn't mean he can't still develop into a great player.
It wouldn't surprise me if Korpikoski turned out to be the better player in the end, but we won't know for several years yet, either way.
This doesn't mean that any second round is gonna be better. But if I have a late first, a second and a fourth rounders instead of a #20, I'd bet on one of those 3 being better than the #20.
You do realize that there are rankings for a reason, right? The guy ranked at #20 is there because he's projected to be a better player than guys in the latter rounds. Therefore, statistically speaking, that #20 guy has a better chance of developing into the better player. Obviously everything is a crapshoot anyway, but I'd much sooner bet on a 1st-rounder than anyone in the latter rounds.
Seems like we have enough decent but not great prospects from all the extra 2nd-3rd round picks we've had in the last handful of draft. At this point I'd rather pick the best player available at #20, or even try to move up.
Yes, it's probably a better prospect, but does that mean that it will be a better player.
Korpikoski was a better prospect than either Dubinsky or Graham. But it was to have those two than Korps because one of those two, Dubi, turned out better than Korps.
This doesn't mean that any second round is gonna be better. But if I have a late first, a second and a fourth rounders instead of a #20, I'd bet on one of those 3 being better than the #20.
I understand your logic and it does in fact make sense.
Here is the thing, though. Our organization has so much depth already that it's basically overflowing. For a team who has a few top end prospects but has little depth, it makes sense to trade down. However, we have so much depth it doesn't make sense to do so. We can take the risk of potential because of our depth. It's one of the reasons we selected Cherepanov last year. Was he the safest pick? No, but Sather knows that we have so much depth that he could bust and it wouldn't kill us the same way it might hurt the Islanders right now.
I am fairly confident that Sather will be taking the highest potential on draft day, and unless we get some ridiculous offer I doubt he's trading down.
Who's Graham?
Korpikoski is going to be insane, just watch. And you still can't tell whether Dubi is better than Korpikoski when Korpikoski still hasn't played a full season.
Dubi right now IS better than Korps. Yes, Korps hasn't played a full year yet. But Dubi has. And he's held up well on the first line. He has already shown himself to be a good second line quality center or a phenomenal third liner.
Korps has done nothing except for a goal in one game.
Next year the expectations are that Korps would be a decent third liner while Dubi will solidify himself as an excellent second line-quality all-around center.
I knew this was coming from someone who can't read.
I'm not suggesting that 20 and 30 are the same. 30 is ranked below 20 and that's how we should judge them now.
But guess what. Sometimes #20 busts. Sometimes #30 succeeds. That's not an excuse to draft 30 over 20, but it's a possibility, you've got to admit that.
But ON TOP OF THAT, #60 may succeed. Or #120 may succeed.
Let me put some random percentages just for illustration purposes only.
Let's say #20 has a 35% chance of being a top-6 forward.
Let's say #30 has a 30% chance of being a top-6 forward.
#20 is obviously superior to #30, but...
what if:
#60 has a 10% chance of being a top-6 forward.
#120 has a 5% chance of being a top-6 forward.
Now which is better, 30+60+120 or just 20?
Not only do you have a better chance that at least one of the 3 picks will be a top 6 forward, you may actually wind up getting lucky and pulling out more than one top forward.
Now every draft these percentages change and none of them are exact. But the point is that I think that 30+60+120 gives us more chances to get a top player and we would actually stand a chance to get more than one real player.
Who knows, maybe we can pull a Dubinsky at #30, a Callahan at #60 and a Marc Savard at #120. They all went around those picks.
We probably wouldn't get THAT lucky, but even if we got one of those players it would probably be better than the average #20 pick in any given draft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrJeff
You do realize that there are rankings for a reason, right? The guy ranked at #20 is there because he's projected to be a better player than guys in the latter rounds. Therefore, statistically speaking, that #20 guy has a better chance of developing into the better player. Obviously everything is a crapshoot anyway, but I'd much sooner bet on a 1st-rounder than anyone in the latter rounds.
Seems like we have enough decent but not great prospects from all the extra 2nd-3rd round picks we've had in the last handful of draft. At this point I'd rather pick the best player available at #20, or even try to move up.
I would never suggest that we draft a few "safer" prospects who will play on our third line.
I say go for high-risk, high-return ones. Some will be Zaborsky, Swanson, Ferraro or Dube. Others will wind up being Savard, Dubinsky, Dawes or Mike York.
Take 3 picks and throw them at three high-risk, high-return prospects. Hopefully you'll get a bullseye with one of them. We won't have much more depth, but we will improve ourselves greatly at the top.
When you are going for a home run, you better off having 3 swings at it than having one that is slightly better than any of those 3.
Take the three and try it grab a potential star.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30
I understand your logic and it does in fact make sense.
Here is the thing, though. Our organization has so much depth already that it's basically overflowing. For a team who has a few top end prospects but has little depth, it makes sense to trade down. However, we have so much depth it doesn't make sense to do so. We can take the risk of potential because of our depth. It's one of the reasons we selected Cherepanov last year. Was he the safest pick? No, but Sather knows that we have so much depth that he could bust and it wouldn't kill us the same way it might hurt the Islanders right now.
I am fairly confident that Sather will be taking the highest potential on draft day, and unless we get some ridiculous offer I doubt he's trading down.
I say go for high-risk, high-return ones. Some will be Zaborsky, Swanson, Ferraro or Dube. Others will wind up being Savard, Dubinsky, Dawes or Mike York.
It's a little early lumping a 5th round pick who's just finished his junior career in with first round busts like Dube and Ferraro, no?
It's a little early lumping a 5th round pick who's just finished his junior career in with first round busts like Dube and Ferraro, no?
Dube was a second rounder. Ferraro was the last overall pick of the first round.
The reason I put Zaborsky in there is that like those players, he's a high risk, high return draftee. Savard was drafted in the 4th. He made it. Zaby probably won't. But those are the type of players I would like them to draft.
No more "safe" players like Jeff Brown and Wes Jarvis who have little upside and don't even make it more than most draftees.
If I remember right the Rangers traded 24th and 43rd for 19th to pick Korpikoski. Without scanning the draft order, if that kind of trade presents itself, I would certainly be interested.
if i was sather and the player i wanted wasnt available at the 20th pick i would actually entertain the idea of traing that #20 pick to a team who has a guy they really want for their first round pick next year and say a third rounder this year. You see trades like this happen in the NFL all the time.
If we were to do this trade it would give us two 1st rounders next year in the John tavares draft. giving us a chance to trade both of them up to try to grab a player who could make a big impact whether it be Tavares or the defenseman Victor Hedman.
I would never suggest that we draft a few "safer" prospects who will play on our third line.
I say go for high-risk, high-return ones. Some will be Zaborsky, Swanson, Ferraro or Dube. Others will wind up being Savard, Dubinsky, Dawes or Mike York.
Take 3 picks and throw them at three high-risk, high-return prospects. Hopefully you'll get a bullseye with one of them. We won't have much more depth, but we will improve ourselves greatly at the top.
When you are going for a home run, you better off having 3 swings at it than having one that is slightly better than any of those 3.
Take the three and try it grab a potential star.
My point exactly. We don't need any Dawes' or York's. We need elite talent. We have enough depth.
And your percentages are skewed. Someone did the research and posted that it was something like 22% for a first rounder and 4% for a 3nd rounder (and less than 3% for a 3rd rounder).
But let's say we don't... what are the odds that the #20 will turn into Keith Tkachuk or Hossa?
People are completely disconnected from reality.
So there's a 4% chance that #20 will be an All Star. There's a 3.5% that #30 will be an All Star. That difference isn't worth a second and a fourth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30
My point exactly. We don't need any Dawes' or York's. We need elite talent. We have enough depth.
And your percentages are skewed. Someone did the research and posted that it was something like 22% for a first rounder and 4% for a 3nd rounder (and less than 3% for a 3rd rounder).
If I remember right the Rangers traded 24th and 43rd for 19th to pick Korpikoski. Without scanning the draft order, if that kind of trade presents itself, I would certainly be interested.
So keep that in mind for value of moving up - if LA wanted to move up 8 spots from #28 to #20, it's going to cost them more than just the #47 pick.
You forgot to mention the other 3 players we picked in the 2004 2nd round- Dane Byers, Darin Olver, Bruce Graham. It sure was a bummer getting those guys.
If we had traded down from the 1st round we would have passed on some of the late 1st rounders that year like Mike Green, Andrej Meszaros, Travis Zajac, Wojtek Wolski, Rob Schremp, Jeff Scultz.
And ended up with Byers or Olver and an extra 4th rounder? Ending up with Dubinsky and an extra 4th rounder would have been by far the best case scenario (Dubi was the best player picked in that years 2nd round) and even so I don't think Dubi is as good as some of the guys who went late 1st round that year.
So if you assume we had a late first rounder in 2004 and traded it down to the early 2nd round in order to pick up an extra mid rounder- there's a very good chance it would have been a bad deal.
I know that's just one draft, but if you want to bring up Dubinsky then might as well apply that situation to this thread.
But in the big picture I'd be more against trading down just because we have enough decent prospects with limited upside already. The guy we pick at #20 will have more upside and that's what we need. We can afford to pick a high risk guy with good upside.
Where the hell are you getting these statistics from? I'd love to know.
Please read before commenting and attacking. I specifically said that I'm just creating random numbers to illustrate a point.
#20 is better than #30. But #20 isn't always better than #30 and #60. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. I was just illustrating how it's possible.
